Business

08/30/2017

The Art of the Deal was the book that brought public recognition to Donald Trump and started him on the path to the presidency. It brought him a certain credibility as a businessman and established him as a figure capable of making wonderful deals: a man who knew what he was doing when negotiating with other people. His television persona in The Celebrity Apprentice and his constant appearance in the society pages of the newspapers reinforced the idea that he was a man of great street smarts and knowledge. However, the persona he presented was all a façade, with not a curious bone in his body and no desire to read or learn anything new. He was a narcissistic con artist who fooled many people into believing he was smarter than he was, richer than he was, and with the ability to run a country as well as a business.

Yet if he were the successful businessman he claimed to be, why was he so concerned about releasing his tax returns to public scrutiny, as every other presidential candidate had done for the last forty years. Had he done something illegal? Was he involved with shady characters or the Russians? Was he in debt or less rich than he had led Americans to believe? There were stories floating around of how he had stiffed contractors working on his projects and had misled investors in some of his deals, causing them to lose large sums. It would have been so easy for him to dispel the rumors and show the world that he had not done anything illegal and that he was indeed rich and successful. But his refusal to release his taxes had to mean that he was hiding something, or perhaps many things. For this arrogant businessman not to prove to everyone that he was an amazingly successful person and to stop people from questioning his bona fides indicated that he was afraid to do it for one reason or another.

And why is he worried about Mueller investigating his financial records in addition to his and his campaign team’s involvement with the Russians. What can be revealed that troubles him, either because he did something illegal or it threatens to impact his stature? And for a man as pompous and smug as Trump, the latter would probably be as devastating as the former. He has a self-image that he doesn’t want tainted.

So while we wait for the Mueller and Congressional investigations to run their course, Trump sits in the White House, making many Americans anxious as he acts and reacts spontaneously to slights and perceived slights from individuals and countries. In reality, instead of The Art of the Deal, he should have titled his book The Art of the Ordeal, which he is putting all Americans through as they wait to see what will happen next. A compendium of his actions does not give one much hope that at some point a new Donald Trump will emerge.

A minor summary of the ordeal Americans have been subjected to by Trump would include his ‘pussy grabbing’ of women, his insistence on a wall at America’s southern border that Mexico will pay for, his unadulterated praise for Putin, his negative comments about John McCain- a true hero, his belittling of a Muslim Gold Star family when Trump never served in the military, his hiring and then firing of General Flynn, his firing of James Comey who would not do his bidding at the FBI, his support for fossil fuels when more jobs are in renewables, his dropping out of the Paris Accord which was unnecessary from an economic standpoint, his denigration of NATO, his handling of Charlottesville and equating white supremacists with anti-racist marchers, his pardoning of Joe Arpaio who violated human rights, his threat to let the US default on its debt if there is no funding for his wall, and on and on.

So where do we go from here? Will the ordeal ever come to an end? Trump could resign, or Mueller could come after him, or he could be impeached, or fill out his four year term. Re-election is too horrid to consider. Now that citizens have seen him in action in office, could they possibly keep him for another four years? Remember that few Americans imagined him as president in the first place and he still won. He would love to win another term just to stick it to the elites, academics, and liberals who have labelled him an incompetent bully and buffoon.

12/07/2016

Donald Trump was elected American president on a surge of populism, promising to bring manufacturing jobs back, deport immigrants, build a wall at the nation’s southern border (which Mexico would pay for), and generally make things better for America’s workers and middle class. He also promised to drain the swamp of Washington insiders and lobbyists, and change the culture in Washington.

Whew! That’s a lot on the Trump plate and his early actions and appointments certainly don’t jibe with his campaign rhetoric. First of all, he backed away on his pledge to deport all illegal immigrants, saying he would send back the 2-3 million with criminal records before addressing the rest. However, there are not 2-3 million undocumented immigrants who are criminals. The number may be under a million with many having minor transgressions and non-violent offenses. Perhaps Trump is more aware that America needs the undocumented immigrants to support areas of its economy, including agriculture, hospitality, landscaping, and construction. So most undocumented immigrants are probably not going anywhere. As for the wall, it has now morphed into a fence.

And even though Carrier has agreed to keep almost a thousand jobs in Indiana after haranguing from Trump, more than a thousand are moving to Mexico. And the new factory there will be operational despite Trump’s pleas and threats. Can the president really tell individual businesses how to operate without the benefit of specific laws? Many more manufacturing jobs from Indiana and other rust belt states are on the way to Mexico in spite of what Trump has pledged. It’s just a lot cheaper to operate down there. As far as tariffs on products of companies that leave the U.S, and on Chinese goods, the Republican Congress, which favors free trade, is likely to shoot that idea down.

Unfortunately, Trump’s transition team has been riddled with lobbyists and Washington insiders, so the existing culture does not seem likely to be transformed. As far as his appointees go, they don’t exactly fit with a populist pantheon and draining the Washington swamp. Billionaires and Wall Street insiders have been filling most of top positions in the Trump cabinet and advisory team, except for an occasional outsider.

The new head of the EPA is a skeptic regarding climate change who questions global warming alarmism and is against policies that would ration energy, believing they would hurt the economy. He opposes the Paris Accord on global warming and has said that a little warming is nothing to worry about. Admitting that he is not a climate scientist, he has previously lobbied against EPA officials who favored reducing US dependence on coal for energy. Is this who we want leading the EPA and protecting us against pollutants as well as climate change. (It is rumored that Trump’s daughter Ivanka may act as a climate czar and push for policies that will reduce global warming, but there has been no confirmation of her role yet.)

As far as controlling Wall Street which Trump demonized during his campaign, he already has two Goldman Sachs ex-partners on his team, and is negotiating with a third for possible head of OMB. The Education, Commerce, and Treasury cabinet positions are all filled by billionaires, none of whom have any government experience. Can we expect policies from them that will favor the middle class and working men, with tax reform at the head of the docket? Where are the populists that were expected?

Republican Congressman Mike Pompeo will be head of the CIA and GOP Senator Jeff Sessions will be appointed Attorney General by Trump, with both needing Senate confirmation which should not be a problem. Both are long-standing Washington insiders who had positions in the swamp. In addition, Representative Tom Price, a Georgia orthopedist who is anti-Obamacare and anti-Medicare, was appointed chief of HHS, another swamp-dweller. (Will Trump’s promise not to touch Medicare or Social Security be kept?) Elaine Chao, who had a cabinet position in the Bush administration and is the wife of Mitch McConnell, was made Transportation Secretary. All denizens of the Washington swamp.

So where is Trump headed with his early actions and appointments? Nobody knows, probably including Trump himself. He’s a guy who shoots from the hip and uses his intuition for the most part to tell him what to do. It worked during his campaign and maybe it will work during his presidency. For the good of the country, we certainly hope so. But I wouldn’t bet my last dollar on it. Debate, dialogue, discussion, and study are more likely to produce answers that are best for America, and these are not Trump’s strong suits.

11/28/2016

What America’s course will be over the next four years is a mystery unlikely to be solved until it is nearly over. It appears that the new president, Donald Trump doesn’t even know himself what to expect and has not formulated a fixed foreign and domestic policy yet. He is a guy accustomed to shooting from the hip and suggesting policy on the fly. In all probability, he did not anticipate winning the election and did not take the time to decide in any depth what his programs would be.

There are a few things Trump has recently said that give us an inkling of some of his ideas. He stated that the TPP is dead and he will kill it his first day in office. It is too bad he did not opt to change it more to his liking instead of rejecting it completely, because his actions provide China with the ability to dominate trade in the Pacific region. He wants to have bilateral trading agreements with a host of partners. But his move will make other nations question America’s reliability as both an economic partner and a military ally, given the country’s willingness to destroy a carefully negotiated deal that required a lot of effort to put together. Trump had campaigned against trade deals but as a businessman must realize that there are many positive aspects to these agreements, including American jobs for exporters.

His promise to bring back American manufacturing jobs from China and other nations can be considered dead, as these jobs are not coming back. Robotization and computers have already replaced many American workers on factory floors, so fewer are needed to produce more goods. In fact, American manufacturing is at an all time high, though workers in this sector have dropped from close to 30 percent of the work force to less than 10 percent over the last forty years. Of course, the benefits of manufacturing go more to the executives and stockholders of these companies rather than the workers, increasing inequality.

In foreign policy issues during the campaign, Trump promised to crush ISIS saying that he knew more how to do so than the generals. But he has not elucidated a specific plan showing how he will go after ISIS. He has also had friendly words for Putin and would like Russia and the U.S. to work together to eliminate ISIS, but it is unclear how America’s relationship with Russia will evolve. Will America increase the number of troops it has in the Middle East? The low level Ukrainian conflict also has to be resolved and the U.S. relationship with its NATO allies has to be clarified.

NAFTA and trade relations with Mexico are also a matter of uncertainty as is the idea of tariffs on Chinese goods. This would elicit a backlash from China and restrictions in their marketplace which could cost American exports and jobs. (Trump has to realize that for every action there may be a reaction.)

How immigration will be handled also needs to be revealed. Trump appeared initially to be backing off from his pledge to deport all undocumented immigrants and said that he would just go after the “two to three million criminal immigrants.” What will happen to the other nine or ten million that are desperately needed by the American economy? And his wall along the Mexican border appears to be morphing into a fence.

He has said he will not pursue criminal indictments against Hillary, but that does not mean that Congress will not go after her. We can assume that the improprieties by the Trump Foundation will be disregarded by the Republicans in Congress, even though they appear to be more serious than Hillary’s indiscretions. And how will Trump’s conflict of interest with his multiple businesses be handled?

A major thrust of infrastructure building has been one of Trump’s promises to produce jobs and help a neglected aspect of the American economy. How this will be paid for is unknown and some Republicans are questioning the size of the effort. It is also unclear how this will be structured, which areas and requirements will be addressed, and how private companies will fit into this equation. Hopefully, it will be started soon as the construction jobs and the repairs to a crumbling infrastructure are badly needed.

Tax reform, control of multi-nationals and large banks, consumer protection, a reasonable minimum wage, moves to increase inequality are all areas that should be addressed, but whether they will and how they will is yet to be determined.

Trump’s appointments to the Supreme Court will keep it conservative for the next fifty years and shape the nation even more than Trump’s presidency. But with Trump’s vacillation and change over the last few years on many issues, how the next four years will turn out remains a continuing mystery.

10/04/2016

Does a man who does not pay his fair share of federal taxes deserve to be president? Does he even deserve to be running for president? Can a man who looks down on those who pay their taxes as suckers and losers represent the country fairly or will he do what he can to enhance his own wealth and assets. Can he connect with ordinary citizens? His history suggests selfishness, self-involvement, narcissism, and behavior bordering on the edge of illegality. He has used the tax codes and the bankruptcy laws to major advantage, often disdainful of his investors, contractors, and small businessmen, whom he forced to take losses when he declared bankruptcy to keep himself afloat.

His “success” as a businessman started with money given to him by his father who subsequently had to bail him out when his ventures went awry. (Who would bail him out if he became president and got into trouble?) Trump’s great business ventures that he has been touting include Trump Airlines that failed, Trump University that scammed money from poor people and failed, the Trump Institute that did the same thing and failed, and the five Trump bankruptcies in his casino business that failed. And he lost nearly a billion dollars in one year. Is this really the great business guru who is capable of righting the American ship of state, or is he more likely to sink it.

Trump is also “a know it all,” unwilling to take advice from consultants or people who are really knowledgeable in different fields. After all, he has had no political experience and should be willing to listen to those who are experts. Yet, he failed to prepare for his first debate with Hillary though his advisors told him it was important and necessary. He believed he could manage the debate “off the cuff” as he has done with so many of his rallies. Thus, the polls and political scientists have shown that Trump lost the first debate, though it is unclear whether that was the result of his lack of preparation. (Trump has told all his associates to say that he won the debate as he does not want his supporters to believe that he lost.)

There is also his secret plan for defeating ISIS which he doesn’t want to reveal for fear of alerting them. He has said that he knows more about how to knock out ISIS than America’s generals, though he has no military experience at all. (He was able to dodge the draft during the Vietnam War, so maybe that gives him some knowledge of military strategy?) Would he listen to the generals if he was elected president, or would he just tell them what to do? He has suggested that torture of terrorist suspects would be fine as would killing their families. These actions would fall into the category of war crimes, though that would not appear to deter him. Perhaps the generals and other officers would not obey him if he ordered war crimes or crimes against humanity.

Would he agree to no first use of nuclear weapons? It’s not clear from what he has said so far, though he did wonder why we had them in the first place if we didn’t intend to use them. (Obviously, he never heard of MAD- Mutual Assured Deterrence.) His admiration for Putin and other dictators who violated human rights gives Americans a clue as to what type of president Trump would be. And his ideas of deporting 12 million undocumented immigrants is a fantasy, as the economy would tank and it would cost the nation hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars to do. His wall at the border that Mexico would pay for is another absurd concept of his that will never come to pass.

One would think that his comments against the disabled, fat shaming of women, racist remarks, and denigration of Hispanics would be enough to lose him the votes of all of these groups. And though it is true Hillary has a majority of these sectors, there are still significant numbers of people in these groups who intend to vote for him. The race is much too close, even though Hillary is far from the ideal candidate. At least she is rational, qualified, and generally in control of herself, unlike “The Donald.” It should have been Hillary by a landslide, but it appears that many Americans have been seduced by Trump’s cons, populist and nationalist slogans. Hopefully, they’ll come to their senses by Election Day.

09/27/2016

The polls have tightened and the presidential election in the last few weeks has seemed like a toss-up. Trump blusters, lies, and exaggerates at every opportunity and his supporters rally to his side, not seeming to care. No answers to problems offered, just mottos. Insults and mottos from a possible president. Is this what democracy has degenerated into in this age of information overload, where people cannot differentiate between hyperbole and real solutions? Where knowledge and experience is no longer valued by voters. Where soundbites and slogans are favored over policy prescriptions.

The debate pitted a master entertainer against a policy wonk politician. A reality show celebrity against reality itself. An autocrat against a democrat. A woman against a man. A bully against an advocate for children. An insulter against the insultee. A predator of women against a woman who’s been victimized. A fat gasbag of a narcissist against a woman primed to take him down. Was she successful?

Trump generally maintained his composure throughout the debate, though he frequently interrupted Hillary and the moderator Lester Holt. There were no major attempts at bullying, though his facial expressions often showed his displeasure for what was being said, with a smirking and head shaking as Hillary spoke. Again, Trump’s ideas were put forth in general terms, rather than being specific about what he was going to do. As expected, he refused to reveal his “secret plan” to defeat ISIS which one wonders is a plan at all. But I forgot that he said he knows more about defeating ISIS than the generals fighting them (though this was not claimed last night).

Also as anticipated Trump still has refused to release his taxes, declaring that they were being audited. This was in spite of the fact that the IRS said this is no reason he cannot release them while they were still under review. Since this has been the custom of presidential candidates for the last forty years, it is obvious that he has something he is hiding; most likely that he is not paying any taxes, though he claims not paying taxes is merely being a good businessman. (Is this the kind of leader America needs?) He may also not be as rich as he claims and may have done deals with nefarious figures. (But we’ll never know with his taxes under lock and key.) Trump also wants to cut taxes mainly on the wealthy, anticipating that the benefits would trickle down to the middle class and that new jobs would be created. Most economists doubt that this would work, but Trump probably knows more than the economists as well.

Hillary also performed as expected, giving more detail on the ideas she had that she would like to see as laws. Higher taxes on the rich to cut student loan debt and mortgage debt, pay for college, and create more jobs. When Trump said that she didn’t “look presidential” and challenged her stamina to be president, Hillary came back with a quick repartee that mentioned her travel as Secretary of State and her testimony before the Benghazi committee.

Hillary was usually seen as smiling and upbeat, while Trump seemed negative. At the finish, he pushed his slogan of Making America Great Again, believing that it was no longer great and he was the guy to right the ship. I haven’t seen the data from the fact checkers yet, but it seemed to me that Trump came out with more whoppers than Hillary, particularly in denying his early support for the Iraq War. And why is he so secretive about his plans and his taxes which must be seen as a negative for him. There was also not enough explanation about Trump’s admiration for Putin and other dictators, why he asked for Hillary’s emails to be hacked by the Russians, and about how he was going to build his great wall.

My take is that Hillary won the debate but was not overwhelming. But her knowledge and preparation shows that she would make a far better president than Trump in spite of all her warts. Trump remains a narcissistic, unhinged, off-the-cuff candidate whose spontaneous declarations are often damaging. I’m for Hillary.

09/20/2016

No matter what Donald Trump is promising, manufacturing jobs are not coming back to the United States. The nation’s manufacturing output is at an all-time high, though jobs in this sector have fallen dramatically. Robots and computers replacing humans are the new workers, and a way must be found to provide a living income for those citizens who have no jobs or low wage jobs that cannot sustain them and their families. Will everyone be provided with a base income from government? How will people occupy their free time?

The transformation to automation has been so stealthy that few people are aware of it happening. In Rise of the Robots by Martin Ford, the author noted that “the symbiotic relationship between increasing productivity and rising wages began to dissolve in the 1970s. As of 2013, a typical production or non-supervisory worker earned about 13 percent less than in 1973 (after adjusting for inflation) even as productivity rose 107 percent” …..In America in the first ten years of the 21st century, no new jobs were created when previously at least 20 percent had been generated in every decade after World War II.

There is no historical precedent for societies needing only a small percentage of its population working in order to maintain or advance its standard of living. An eight hour day and a forty hour week that are fairly standard in America for most workers is of relatively recent origin. In the late 19th and early 20th century, many workers toiled twelve hours daily and six days a week to earn subsistence wages. In France now, and some other nations, a seven hour day and thirty-five hour week is the norm in many industries. Sweden has already started experimenting with a six hour workday. Productivity from workers has increased and sick days and time off have gone down by more than half. People in the study are happier and more energetic compared to a controlled group. The increased productivity suggests that this model of a shorter workday could be effective globally, though it might be contrary to the values of some nations and hard to institute. Perhaps to keep unemployment at bay as computers and robotics improve, nations will gradually decrease to a twenty-hour work week or even less. And maybe there will be no choice other than having fewer people working. John Maynard Keynes foresaw this, predicting that a fifteen hour workweek could be expected as standard by 2030.

Perhaps given this situation, more individuals will be involved in creative endeavors, with an explosion of artists, writers, musicians, and so forth. An increase in artisanal efforts could occur as well, with organic farming, small restaurants with innovative owner-chefs, handmade furniture makers, potters, and various other craftspeople. Unique handmade goods may become more valuable and in greater demand than those mass-produced in factories. A New York Times article in 2015 noted that handmade goods were more desirable and considered chic, especially if they were of local origin.

Many people will find things to do that they enjoy and perhaps make some money doing them. But others who are unemployed will be dependent on private organizations or government to keep them occupied with some sort of tasks. This metamorphosis to a post-industrialized economy will occur not only in developed nations but over time will be a global phenomenon. Third-world countries will also become fully computerized and roboticized over the years, finding that it is cheaper than their once-cheap labor. Perhaps some people will spend more time on their educations, then devote their lives to arcane areas of research that interests them and a small coterie of enthusiasts. Perhaps a devotion to games or charitable efforts. Perhaps an obsession with sports, actively or passively. There will be time for everything.

However, though people will be living longer and healthier lives, the world will need fewer of them for the fewer jobs that require human roles, and nations may institute mandatory birth control to curb their populations as China had previously done. One possible benefit of this is that global warming may be reduced as the total number of the earth’s inhabitants drop. Though the time-line is unclear, at some point all states will undergo major transformations that will eliminate a large percentage of work and jobs, and challenge concepts of democracy. Is a minimum living income for everyone an answer to the increased unemployment that lies ahead? Are mandatory national service and make-work jobs solutions for some countries? Or perhaps to reduce social unrest, nations will limit the use of robots and computers to keep their citizens working.

Some countries are unwilling to face the inevitable changes head on, with either governments or workers wanting to maintain the status quo and refusing to try any adaptations to deal with the new reality. For example, French youth and workers were unwilling to allow the Socialist government to institute changes to the labor laws in 2016 to make jobs more flexible and the hiring and firing of workers easier, with demonstrations and protests everywhere. Workers are afraid that some of the benefits they have acquired over the years with strong unions negotiating for them will be taken away. But this is a necessity as they are working in a competitive global environment and cannot have it all anymore. Flexibility is the key to the current workplace as protective walls will not be able to offer the protection they want from automation and globalization. The future will be even more difficult.

Every nation needs to prepare for the changes that are coming. Think tanks, workshops, corporations, NGOs, and government agencies must delve into the problems and find ways to make life tolerable as work no longer dominates the lives of most of the world’s inhabitants. Whether the social impact will hit in ten years or half a century, it is unavoidable.

09/13/2016

For most of the 20th century, America was far ahead of the rest of the world in the quality and extent of its infrastructure in virtually every sector and every type, providing it with a marked economic advantage. However, through government neglect and an unwillingness to devote adequate funding to maintenance and expansion, America’s infrastructure is in dire straits, some of it far behind other nations and part of it in danger of collapse. In fact, some highways and bridges have already failed, with a number of deaths and injuries. Private industry is not going to assume responsibility for infrastructure upkeep though it is a prerequisite for further economic growth. It is the government’s function which necessitates spending money, requiring taxes or fees to generate funds. This is an anathema for the Republican Party and its Congressional members who do not seem to realize the vital importance of the infrastructure for the economy.

The Federal government built most of the nation’s infrastructure over the past two centuries, with legislators and cabinet members who were aware that this was required to insure continued progress. Ease of transportation was a priority, from the Erie Canal in 1807, to the Transcontinental Railroad in 1869, and the interstate highway system in the 1950s and 1960s. Currently, however, the nation’s transportation infrastructure is lagging the demands and needs of an expansive economy, which will only worsen in the future. The inexpensive and efficient transportation of goods is vital to American businesses, allowing them to keep manufacturing in the U.S. or move production back to the nation. It keeps prices lower, increases productivity, and improves long term competitiveness. Millions of jobs can also be generated by infrastructure investment.

What exactly does infrastructure encompass? It includes roads and bridges, dams, levees, canals, ports, and inland waterways, airports, mass transit, and railroads, public parks and recreation areas, drinking water, wastewater, solid waste, hazardous waste, energy generation facilities and transmission networks, Internet maintenance and protection, broadband and schools. The American Society of Civil Engineers provides a report card on the state of America’s infrastructure every four years, the latest being released in 2013. In that report, the G.P.A. for the nation’s infrastructure was D+, with the projected investment necessary to correct the deficiencies by 2020 estimated to be $3.6 trillion. With minimal amounts allocated for infrastructure work by Congress since the report was published, it is likely the price has increased since then. The report’s cost was based on maintenance, repairs, and modernization, but did not provide for new additions such as high speed trains, which are already in use in Japan, China, and Europe, providing reliable inexpensive transportation for their citizens. In addition, carbon emissions are reduced by taking thousands of vehicles daily off the roads. Improving control systems so that they cannot be easily hacked was also apparently not included, though part of that expense would be borne by private companies that utilize portions of the infrastructure in their business model.

America has more than 4 million miles of roads, 600,000 bridges, and 3000 transit providers. However, federal, state, and local investment in transportation has decreased as a proportion of GDP, though population and congestion have grown along with maintenance backlogs. The quality of America’s roads in the World Economic Forum’s rankings dropped from 7th to 18th overall in less than 10 years. 45 percent of Americans do not have access to mass transit, one in four bridges need major repairs or cannot manage current traffic, and 65 percent of the nation’s roads are in poor condition. Because of the deficiencies, Americans waste 5.5 billion hours in traffic each year which results in families spending more than $120 billion in lost time and additional fuel. Businesses face shipping delays and $27 billion extra in transportation expenses which are passed on to consumers. It is also estimated that roadway conditions played a major role in about one third of the 33,000 traffic fatalities in 2013.

Further neglect of infrastructure will cost Americans more jobs, time, and access, on the roads, in the air, mass transportation, and the Internet. Making sure all Americans have safe water is also urgent, after the Flint debacle. Waste and wastewater also has to be handled efficiently. Congress has to understand the impact continued neglect of infrastructure will have on the economy. Now is an excellent time to start repairing and expanding all facets of the nation’s infrastructure, with low interest rates and many blue collar workers unemployed. The longer the can is kicked down the road by politicians at federal and state levels, the greater the price that will have to be paid in the future.

07/12/2016

Given the terrible tragedies in Dallas, Baton Rouge, and St. Paul the last week, the ramifications of Brexit and the presidential contest may seem remote and of less importance to Americans at this time. But both matter in terms of how our nation will evolve over the next few years.

When Trump was first asked his opinion about Brexit, he initially did not know what it was.

Then when Brexit happened, Trump was in Scotland pumping his golf course, and said that the pound’s losing value would be good for his business. Trump also stated that he was in the midst of people happy about Brexit, though Scotland had voted overwhelmingly to remain in the E.U. He declared as well that Brexit would benefit Britain, though most economists believe it will negatively impact Britain’s economy and could lead to the nation splitting apart.

Given the surge in populism, the supporters of Brexit in Great Britain to a large degree mirror the people backing Trump in the U.S. Pro-Brexiters are more likely to have been from rural areas, small or medium sized towns, than from major urban areas, as is also true for the Trump advocates.

Many of those pro-Brexit and pro-Trumpers are uneducated white working men, who are unemployed or underemployed, and feel left behind by globalization. The left-behinders are angry at the “elites” who they feel have benefitted economically from the new order while they have suffered. Supporting Brexit and Trump are metaphorical punches in the nose to those on top politically or economically, showing them that white working men still count. And of course the left-behinders are against immigrants who they blame for the loss of jobs and decreased wages. In England it is the eastern Europeans and in the U.S. it is Hispanics who are accused of taking jobs. The white working men don’t see that automation and increased factory productivity has changed manufacturing forever, and that education is the only way out for those left behind.

There is also a big divide from the standpoint of age between pro-Trumpers-Brexiters, and those who disdain Trump and those who wanted to remain in the E.U. Older people are generally in the Trump-Brexit camp and the young are more likely to be anti-Trump and anti-Brexit. The young tend to be more cosmopolitan than their elders, more educated, have travelled more and are more at ease with different nationalities.

After Brexit passed, the leaders of the movement took back the promises they had made, saying that they had been wrong. However, these messages had convinced many of the English to vote to leave. But the financial benefits were seen to be a mirage, and open borders for E.U. citizens will have to remain if Britain is to keep the E.U. as its favored market.

If Trump is elected president, his promises will be seen to have been lies as well. A wall will not be built between Mexico and the United States, and Mexico will not pay for it. Actually, immigration is now reversed, with more migrants going back to Mexico than coming into the U.S, so a wall isn’t even necessary. Trump will also not deport 12 million undocumented immigrants. That would be enormously expensive to accomplish and would badly damage the American economy. These workers are needed for agriculture, hospitality, restaurants, landscaping, and so forth, jobs that many Americans would not take.

Trump will also not abandon all the trade pacts that have been signed and start trade wars with the nations we do business with. Congress would not allow him to do this, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American businessmen are already berating Trump over this idea. He is also not going to order surveillance on all Muslims, as that would be unconstitutional. And torture of suspected terrorists and killing their families can be considered war crimes, so Trump is unlikely to follow through on those promises.

A wave of populism and nationalism has been sweeping the world and Trump has been riding its crest. Brexit was also the result of populism and nationalism, though economically it made little sense. Though Hillary Clinton is a flawed candidate for president, she would be far better as an occupant of the White House than Donald Trump, the narcissist and populist-in-chief, whose campaign promises have been a pack of lies. Hopefully, people will realize this before it is too late.

06/29/2016

One would think that one of the most important jobs of the House and the Senate is to enhance the American economy and improve employment. However, there is one senator who single-handedly is doing what he can to damage the economy and see to it that jobs are sent abroad. The senator is Richard Shelby of Alabama, the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee who obviously has no concept of economics and should not be in the important position he was given by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and fellow Senate Republicans. He claims his mission is to cut “corporate welfare” and he will not retreat from the stance he has taken.

He is hurting the economy by interfering with the functioning of the Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im), a government agency that has been in place and operating since the Depression. For a year, Senator Shelby has blocked the Ex-Im Bank from helping to finance sales of American products worth over $10 million to foreign countries. These loans and insurance over the years have actually earned money for the bank and American taxpayers, but a small risk of default may exist. However, every other major manufacturing country provides export loans to nations buying their products. The failure of the Ex-Im Bank to do the same puts American firms at a competitive disadvantage when trying to sell big ticket items, like airplanes, nuclear plants, turbines, and so forth. China has the biggest credit export program.

Because of Shelby’s intransigence, GE has already moved thousands of American jobs abroad to nations such as France, Czech Republic, Hungary, Britain, and China, whose governments were willing to provide the necessary loans. Boeing has lost contracts for satellites and planes to other bidders because the Ex-Im Bank would not provide the necessary loans. The company is now negotiating with Britain to finance some of its planes using Rolls-Royce engines instead of American made engines. Other companies needing the loans include Westinghouse, John Deere, and Caterpillar. Boeing has plants in Alabama which could lose jobs if Senator Shelby continues his war on the bank, but this does not seem to move him.

Originally, Republicans in Congress were refusing to renew the charter of the Ex-Im Bank, which would have put the bank out of business. But after half a year, supporters were able to restart the bank in December 2015. However, it could only approve loans below $10 million, which make up about a third of the bank’s business. For loans above that sum, a quorum of members of the bank’s board have to vote in favor. Shelby, as Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee has stymied that from happening by not allowing President Obama’s nomination of a third member of the five person board to be confirmed by the Senate, holding it in limbo in his committee.

Among the future deals that will be lost if the Ex-Im Bank does not begin operating normally are the sale of one hundred airplanes to VietJet by Boeing and six nuclear reactors to be constructed for India by Westinghouse. But Senator Shelby will not budge, not caring about the loss of jobs and the effect on the economy by his actions. How this is corporate welfare when the bank makes money is not clear, but far right conservatives have strange notions about the functions of the government and what it should and should not do. The conservatives in Congress were perfectly willing to provide major subsidies to large corporate farmers in the recent past as these states were important to them politically.

Democrats in the Senate tried to bypass Shelby’s committee to bring the nomination to the floor recently, but unanimous consent is needed for this move. Shelby would not agree, so the nomination remains bottled up in his committee even though most Republicans in addition to Democrats want the Ex-Im Bank to function. And American jobs are being sent abroad and the economy bolstered in other nations because of one senator’s obdurate stupidity.

06/22/2016

So now it’s come down to this. The Donald, who self-identifies himself as “really, really rich” and worth many billions of dollars, begging supporters and the Republican Party for cash. This Madoff-like con man has scammed his supporters and the GOP into believing his assertions of vast wealth and now the pigeons are coming home to roost. Didn’t The Donald once say that he was going to fund his whole campaign by himself? If you still believe he’s going to do that, I’ve got a bridge I’d love to sell you at a discounted price.

Currently, his campaign has $1.3 million available for advertising and to pay vendors and personnel, compared to Hillary’s $42 million. But don’t worry if you’re a Trump supporter. He’ll find a way to get by. In his past business ventures, Trump stiffed many of the small businessmen who provided him with supplies or worked for him. Either he didn’t pay them, or negotiated down what he owed them, paying cents on the dollar. If they weren’t happy, he threatened to take them to court, and the suit would cost them plenty even if they won. That was the way The Donald conducted business, riding roughshod over workers (many of whom were immigrants) and small companies that did not have the resources to fight him.

However, his tactics in real estate did not prevent him from bankruptcy on many occasions (which he says was a strategy of his), allowing him to get more loans from the banks who were afraid of losing out on their original loans. (This was bad judgement on the part of the lenders who wound up losing more in the long run.) Of course, the investors (other than the banks) who went into these ventures with The Donald, lost their shirts with the bankruptcies, though Trump was able to escape personal bankruptcy himself on these occasions. He didn’t care what happened to his partners, the banks, or the small businesses he hurt.

If The Donald is elected president, he says he will use some of these techniques to lower the debt load of the United States, threatening US bankruptcy and not paying the full value to those who bought US bonds. This would be disastrous for the nation and the world, destroying American credibility and the value of the dollar as an international currency. A global economic crisis would be precipitated. American debt has always been believed to be the most secure in the world and virtually risk-free. This benefits the United States as other countries have been willing to lend it money at absurdly low interest rates. Trump’s ploy would badly damage America’s credit rating and would end other nations buying of America’s bonds. The fact that Trump even suggested taking this path reveals his lack of knowledge regarding economics though he claims to be a smart businessman.

Interestingly, The Donald has been using campaign funds to pay himself, his family, and his own businesses, rather than paying for the campaign himself. His campaign paid over $400,000 to rent his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, which Trump should have just donated to his campaign if he’s as rich as he says he is. His campaign also spent nearly $400,000 on Trump’s jets which also should have been donated. In addition, according to the Federal Elections Commission, Trump’s campaign spent money at the Trump Plaza, Trump Soho, Trump Café, Trump Grill, and for Trump Wine, Trump Water, at Trump Golf Clubs, and so forth. Several payments went directly to The Donald as well. His campaign paid over $1.1 million in May to his businesses and family for various expenses they incurred. Does this sound like a rich man funding his own campaign?

And just a few days ago, The Donald put out an emergency appeal for $100,000 so he would be able to air some advertisements. If The Donald were worth the $10 billion he says he is, that would have been just a drop in the bucket for him and he would have come up with the money himself. It seems as if Trump is using his campaign as a business venture to generate money for himself, rather than spending it to fund his campaign. And so far, he has spent little on TV advertising or to set up campaign organizations in at least the battleground states, needed to collect data and conduct a ground game.

Almost certainly, Trump has lied about his net worth, with Forbes describing his claims of great wealth as fiction. This would appear to be the main reason he is refusing to release his tax returns as his income and assets would likely become public. He may also be avoiding paying taxes, not a good thing for a presidential candidate.

Look at some of The Donald’s other business ventures outside of real estate and casinos. United States Football League lasted three seasons in the 80s, then down the tubes. Trump University- defunct. A total scam on unsuspecting students. Trump Vitamins and the Trump Network- gone. Another scam. The Trump Shuttle- shut down with the loans defaulted. And so on. Analysts have said that given the inheritance Trump received from his father, he has greatly underperformed the real estate market over the last forty years and is in reality a mediocre businessman at best.

But The Donald has been able to deceive the public, his supporters, and the Republican Party. He appears to be trying to make a profit on running for president rather than winning the election. And all his talk about his wealth and how he would fund his campaign himself is all b.s, a major component of The Donald that people apparently cannot smell. Hopefully, he will not make it to the White House as he will probably start charging for tours and finding other ways to accumulate wealth through his new position.

Release your tax returns Donald if there’s any validity to what you’ve been telling Americans.